check_token_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns token validity, granted/missing permissions, and rate limit usage, which is good behavioral context. It could mention error handling or authentication assumptions, but overall solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: first defines the purpose, second lists outputs. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical information. Excellent conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key outputs (validity, permissions, rate limit). It could add notes on error scenarios or intended use as a preliminary step, but it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable as there are no parameters to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks Meta API token health, permissions, and rate limit status. It uses specific verbs ('check') and resources ('Meta API token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on ad management and pixels.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for token verification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide prerequisites. Given no overlapping sibling tool, usage is implied but not formally guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.